Anne Landman's Collection
Face the Nation As Broadcast Over the Cbs Television Network and the Cbs Radio Network Sunday, 710103 -- 11:30 A.M. - 12:00 Noon Est Origination: Washington, D.C.
Abstract
In this 1971 Face the Nation Television interview, Morton Mintz of the Washington Post confronts Joseph Cullman, III (then Chairman of the Board of Philip Morris) with information about a massive study done in the United Kingdom that showed that babies of smoking mothers had a greater incidence of low birth weight than non-smoking mothers, and that babies of smoking mothers had an increased risk of stillbirth and death within 28 days of birth. Cullman acknowledged that he was aware of the study and its results. His response:
"Some women would prefer having smaller babies."
When Mintz asked Cullman "What about the higher rate of death?" Cullman replied, "I'm not familiar with that."
Many of the questions asked of Cullman in this interview are still pertinent today, such as why Philip Morris continues to promote smoking among women, while they are also aware that smoking can hurt fetuses of pregnant women.
The passages of interest are on Pages14-15 of the transcript. Interviewers are: George Herman, CBS News, Morton Mintz, The Washington Post, Earl Ubell, Science Editor, WCBS-TV News.
Fields
- Quotes
Mr. Mintz: Do you believe that cigarettes are safe? Have they been proved to be safe, Mr. Cullman?
MR. Cullman: I believe they have not been proved to be unsafe.
Mr. Mintz: Well, in view of the fact that they haven't been proved to be safe, what is the justification that you would offer for spending -- according to one estimate I've seen -- $3 billion in the last 20 years-- to promote their use where there is that uncertainty, when we have an excess deaths of 200,000 to 300,000 a year, when there is all this evidence, which you don't feel is conclusive--what is the reason for promoting its use when it might cause cancer, heart disease and so forth?
Mr. Cullman: Well, I'd have to answer that in this way, Mr. Mintz. There are a great many people in the United States and all over the world who enjoy smoking, who find it satisfies a very important human need. We think those people are entited to the best possible product we can produce. That is essentially our job.
Mr. Mintz: Now embryos don't have much choice, fetuses don't. They don't like to smoke. The British Medical Research Council did a study of all the 17,000 babies born in a single week in the United Kingdon, as you doubtless know. The Council found that those babies born to mothers who smoked during pregnancy were in significantly higher proportion small, weighing under five and a half pounds approximately, than the babies born to mothers who did not smoke, and there was a higher rate of stillbirths and of deaths within 28 days of birth. My question is, in view of this study, which is the largest and most elaborate of its kind ever made, is it right to promote smoking among women with Virginia Slims and other brands especially marketed for them wiht no warning as to the danger to the embryo that may exist?
Mr. Cullman: Well, you are reading that question because it is a complicated question.
Mr. Mintz: Yes, it is.
Mr. Cullman: I would say that I did read that report, and I concluded from that report that it's true that babies born from women who smoke are smaller, but they are just as healthy as the babies born to women who do not smoke. Some women would prefer having smaller babies.
Mr. Mintz: What about the higher rate of death?
Mr. Cullman: I'm not familiar with that.
- Company
- Philip Morris
- Author
- CBS News
- Recipient
- Public; television audience
Executive vice president and senior marketing executive of Philip Morris in the 1950s. Exec. VP 1955-57. President in 1958, held that position until 1967. Chairman from 1968-1972 and acquired title of CEO. Chairman of the Executive Committee, 1979-85. On the Board of Directors from 1954-1985.
Document Images
Sunday,
CBS NEWS
2'.020 M Street, U. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
PAUTHE NATION
as broadcast over the
CBS Television Network
and the
CBS Radia Network
January 3, 1971 -- 11:30 A. M. - 12:00 Noon EST
Origination: Washington, D. C.
GUES'T : JOSEPI31P. CULLMAN' I I I
Chairman of the Board, Philip Morris, Inc.
REPORTERS: George Herman, CBS' News
Morton Mintz, The Washington Post
Earl Ube11, Science Editor, WCBS-TV
New s
PRODUCERS: Prentiss Chi1d!s, and Sylvia Westerman
.
NOTE TO E'DI'TO'RS :- PZease credit CBS, News ' "Face the Nation.
m
GEORGE HEE,4tAN: Mr. Cu.llraan, some serious charges have been
raised on the floor of the Senate and even in a tobacco publica-.,
tion that the tobacco companics are organizing to thwart the banion
broadcast advertising of cigarettes. Now we understand a meeting
has been calledito discuss this problem. Can you tell us about it
and whether you plan to attend?
MR. CULLMAN: I can tell you about the meeting. I do not
plan tolattend'. That meeting will be attended by the Chairman of
the Federal Coaamunications Commission,, the president of the Tobacco!
Institute, and the president of the National Associationof Broad-
casters. And the purpose of the meeting, I gather, is to try to
clarify the new law which reflects the fact that cigarette aldver-
tising will be off'the air. We volunteered to go ofAr the!air. We
plan tolbe off the air. We agreed to do this; the law provides it;
we plan to adhere~to the!spirit and the letter of'the law. We are
not going to advertise cigarettes on the air.
ANNOUN'CER': From C'BS Wash'ington, in color, FACE THE NATION, aspiontaneous and unrehearsed news
interview with Joseph Cullman III,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Philip Pdosris Incorporated
and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Tobacco Institute.
Mr. Cullman will be questioned by Earl UbeZ'1!, Science Editor of
4B&-TV'News, New York; Morton Mintz of the WashingtonlPost, and
CBS News Correspondent George Herman.
1005081'715
HEUiAN: Mr. Cullman, as you know, some of these charges that
certain cigarette companies plan to try to sneak in 'some hididicn
advertising, so to speak, if there isy any such thing, are so serious
that, as I gather, the Chairman of the FCC has called this' meeting.
Do you think that no one is planning to sneak in a little commercial
here and there in the corner of the camera?
MR. CULUSAN': Well, this question has come up recently. Of
course, many of these:sporting events have been sponsored'by ciga-
rette companies for a number of years. This is-not a new development
and it has been known that they were going to sponsor these events
for at least nine months. I would say that I am confident in the
integrity of the other presidents andf chief executive officers of
the other companies. I do not feel -- D am confident they are not
going to subvert the law, they are not going toltry to circumvent
the law -- what_we need here is clarification. The law says ciga-
rette advertising will be off the air, and cigarette advertising
wil'l be off the air.
What I believe the meeting with Dean Burch will concern itself
with is the question of clarification. This i's a new law and we
need clarification. I think the broadcasters need clarification,
and apparently the Federal Communications Commission is going to:
help us in this matter. I"d like to:say that many of the articles
that have appeared in the press, I feel, are misleading. The
companies are very sincere, they are law-abiding, and they are gai'ng
to abide by the law.
100'5081"716
htINT'Z: I have no doubt that you are abiding by the law l'iter-
a1'1y, but say if your company sponsors a Viroinia Sliiri's tennis
tournament, an invitational for women tennils players, isn't that
really an effort to get around the imtent and spirit of the law,
=3 dr ~
which is to stop., as I understand it, the spirit is to stop the use
of the airwaves to promote cigarette smoking?
MR. CULL''IIIIA11: Well, that's a good, que5tion,,I,ir. Mintz. I would
say that, no-, the purpose for our sponsori~ng the Virginia Siim's
invitaticzal tour:.ament,s is to help the ladies in tennis to geta!
chance to get pr.ize money and to show their prowess before a lot of
people in the areas where they are playing the tennis matches. There
is no plan to telecast these tournanents,, and this is on-premise pro-
motion in the areas where they are going to have the tournaments,
and we plan to adhere to the spirit and the letter of thie 1'aw. These
tournaments have not been telecast. Now, for example, we have been
sponsoring the U.S. Open Tennis Championship at Forest. Hills for a
number of years. jtite think that people have appreciated th~at sponsor-
ship:. We won't b~e able to sponsor it in tAx:rs of television ccm-
mercials in the future,, but our sponsorship of sporting events~will
continue without television e,xposure!.
UBELL: Your company makes.a number of other products besides
cigarettes. Do you have any plans,: for example, to increase the
amount of air advertising, broadcast advertisir.o, for those products
which may bear, shall we say,, a nameresemblance or a look resem-
blance to cigarettes?
F-~
A4R. CULL'-L-%N: Well, that's been, raised too many times. We ~
CA
dion't happen to have any such, products. We are also iniother busi- O
Q7
nesses,, such as chewing gum and beer -- I am not going to mention
- ~ .
the products -- I would say that, no, there is. no intention, there ej
will be no intention to subvert the law, to circumvent th'e- law,
and I f~ee l a~~b~s o~lu~t~~e~ly~ confident t~h~a~~t~ this wi 11 nio~ u b~e~ d'~o~~ne~ by my
company,, and' I'feel just as confident it won't be done by the other
companies, but I cannot speak for them today in that particular area.
I'm glad you brought that up, because I think this brings me to-
another point that I do want to make relate to that question. We
have tried to be-responsible and responsive. We have been responsi-
ble in many ways. Over the years we have~ciscontinued all campus
promotional act,ivities~when this was brought to our attention as,not
being appropriate.We have discontinued advertising in college
newspapers. Vie have discontinued the use of celebrities,, the use
of sporting figures, in our advertising, and the use of'testimonials
by them. Further than that, we volunteered to go ofz'the air, which
was a very big move,: to attempt to clear the air. So we have shown,
I think, responsibility, and we have been responsive.
We are al!so very concerned about the charges levelled against
our product, andwe~ are very anxious~to do whatever we can to clear
the air in this matter. We happen to be optimistic about the future,,
and we happen to feel that this is, a great industry, and that this
industry can face~the future with confidence:because when, as, and
if any ingredient in cigarette smoke is~ identified as being injiurious
to human health, we are confident that we can eliminate that in-
gredient.
H'BR.`.M": Before we get into th~e medical aspect, which I think
now you are leading us into it,,I just want to finish off on the
advertising question. Are you not involved in a lawsuit to test
the constitutionality of this
the Tobacco Imstitute or your
MR. CU'LL?iAN : No, we are
O
O
CA
O
OD
law banning broadcast advertising -- ~
company? ~
not,, Mr. Herman. I think you are
S
referring to the question of the Fairness Doctrine--
HEILNf~N ': Yes .
MR. CULUM: --of the Federal Communications Commission.
That relates to the question -- the Fairness Doctrine was invoked'
by the Federal Communications Corimission, and they required that al~l
broadcasters air anti-cigarette messages without charge in approxi-
mately a percentage o:c one to three regular cigarette commercial!s.
N~owthatkeareofftheair, the Federal Coramunicat ions Commission
has ruled this is no longer a controversy, and hence broadcasters,
who air anti-cigarette messages do not have to air the rebuttal by
the tobacco incustry, but the Federal Communicat ions.Commissio went
on to say that the stations may do this.
The issue here is whether if anti-cigarette messages are aired
by stations after the cigarette cor.amercialls go off the air, don't
the tobacco companies have a right to rebut and answer the questions
under the Fairness Doctrine, if it was a fairness doctrine.
HER'.%SA,V: You personally then are satisfied that this ruling of
a product advertising, a legal product advertisino,, off of some
media of advertising and, not off of others, is a constitutional and
fair process within the powers of the Congress? 10Cl50$17191
MR. CULLAAAI: Well, we volunteered to do this--
HEPUMAN: I understand. I'm just questicr~ing. the legality.
?4R. CU'LL141AN: Well, the legality' is somethir.b which I' d'ora't
think I a: qualified to pass on here. I will say that the Congress
passed the law; it has not been tested: yet fron a constitutional
standpoint. It is beinb tested. I think you ma~~ also be -referring
to~ a suit brought by a number of radio companies perhaps. That was
6
not brought ::y the cigaxette industry.
UBELL: ?ir. Cuilman, now that you are not advertising on radio
and television, you are going to have a little bit of money left
over. I think in your company somethi~ng,like $30 million a year
perhaps; for the indlustry as a whole, a quarter of a billion. Aree
you going to use that money, for exanple, to do more research to
settl.e the health question?
MR. CULL:IAN: Well, research is going to get certainly an ex-
panded amount of money. That matter comes up a11 the time -- that
subject -- what are we going to do with the extra money?'
UBELL: Well, what are you going to do with the extra money?
MR. CULLMAN: Well, I can on2y speak for my company, and what
I believe t;ie other companies will do. Of course, this is a very
eompetitive husiness. Zti'e will continue to spend money for promotion-
al purposes, and some of it will go in print, some wi11 go in point
of sales, soae will go in on-premises promotion. We will be spending
it on an expanded sales force, but a lot will go into expanded re-
search in a desire to get the ansaaers to these questions.
HERriA':: 1t7hat is a lot? What percentage of your advertising
budget, for example.'
1005081'720
MZ. CULLN?1N: Well, there is a question that I anticipated. I
don't know hoar to answer that question; they are so d'ifferent items.
1llhen you try to get a:nessage thro gh to 200 million Americans and
65 millior_ sr~~okers, and you compare that f'igure to a f'igure for re-
search, this is a very difficult figure to come up with. I happen -
to l:now roa:gh-y what our campany is going to spend; I t}dnk it is
a large figure. We are building right now a whole new research
cuntcsr in ;~ictimond. We src; c>xhandiirng. We fiavc been expanding our
co'mmitment to research,, both, product research, product irrProvement, '
1ttr1' t r"<rnt rh irr thir at r- -I r+t -~mo1P i,ir ~n~l 1'nn a l t li
HERMAN': I'm just trying to put it in proportion, because the
figures, as _ I've been able to get them--and~ they "re kind' of' mixed
up in the facts and in different standards--but as I've been--as near
as I've been able to figure out, it's about one per cent, or less off
the advertising budget.
MR. CULLA'iUMr That is--that is not true, Mr. Herman. I would
say that in 1971, something, in the: area of a half to a third, will go
into research compared to our advertising.
NERrIAii: Is this for your company, or for the tobacco industry?
MR. CU'LL1KkN':, Our company--I can't speak for the industry.
HER'4AN: Because the tobacco industry advertising comes to,
Iike 250 million a year and you,--would you figure half of that?.
NtR. CULUIA~u: Well, that figure has been reduced to 2010, million.
HER~SCN: All right. Would you think half ofthat--a hundred
mi1~lion: a year--is going into research?'
MR. CULLMAN: No, I wouTd'n "t say that. I can't speak for the
other companies. I"m talking overall research, product research,
product improveraent--
HIER~UUN: Not health research? 10'05 081'722
}4R. CULUUCU: --And health research,. But I want to say this,
that I've been advised for a number of years, the problem here is
not funds. The problem is direction, competence and'.trying to find
out what do we want to ascertain and~ how do we want to ascertain it.
HEIU#NT: Well,, I'11--24'orton is straining at the bit here:, but
one question that I would'like to ask--one of the most controversial
` 1.
of the recent experiments has beern, the one of the smoking beagles,s
who were forced by a hole cut in their throa~ts to smoke cigarette
9
smolte, and came up with a number of cancers, neoplasms, growths,
tumors,, all_ different kinds of words to describe it. The problem
that I come up with is this. It was ir.:mediately jumped upon by the
Tobacco In_°ZtLte and thoroughly denounced for various reasons, some
of whic: have since evaporated, I understand, some of which have not.
My question is this--noRr many d'ogs or laboratory animals of comparable
size has the Tobacco I'nstitute financed experimentation' of that kind
on? How many beagles have you had' smoi:ing?
MR. CULLMA,\: Well, we"ve had anir:al` inhalation tests going on
all over t:.e world, not sponsored only by the tobacco industry, but
sponsored by independent research sectors(?) for over 2'S years. And''
I might say that these tests have always been negative. They have
never been able to' induce lung cancer in animals due to inhalation
of cigarette smoke.
And I would 1ike to comment on t:at Auerbach-Hammond' Report.
This is a very important development.
HERMAti' : Indeed.
MIR. CULLMA~,~': That was announced, as you may recall, on Februaxy
Sth, at a press conference at the Walcorf-Astoria Hotel as a' maj'or
breakthrough, a's the firsx time tha't a major animal had indeed been
ind'uced' to get lung cancer from'
L1'BELL: Outsid'e of man.
smokir.b cigarettes.
Tilt'. C'JLLMAN: Outside of man--that is correct. Animal, I
b:elieve I said. I also want to say tnat a charge was leveled,
only against o r product but a claim was made
industry, as the resulit of these experiments,
not
O
O
O
OD
N
that the cigarette N
should assess its ~I
advertising policies and its overall policies. This was a serious
,~ ~
